Tom McIntyre & Virginia Tong (1998). Education and Treatment of Children, volume 21, issue 3, pages 321-332.

We're not sure that we agree with the points contained herein either.  They are offered for your consideration.

 Do Cross-Gender Misunderstandings
 of Language Use and Behavior Patterns
 Contribute to the Overrepresentation
 of Males in Programs For Students
 with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders?

 Individuals of one gender frequently misinterpret the actions of the other.  In our schools, cross-gender misunderstanding can impact greatly on the educational process, and may result in boys displaying strong traditional male behavioral patterns being labeled emotionally and/or behaviorally disordered when they are not.

     Early in their lives, youngsters develop a gender identity, displaying behaviors that are more or less associated with males or females (Bank Street College, 1996).  These gender differences do not appear all at once (Grossman & Grossman, 1994), but rather become gradually more pronounced in each stage of development.

 While no generalization about gender-based behavior applies to all individuals, males and females typically think, communicate, and behave in different ways (Gray, 1992; McIntyre, 1996a; Oxford, 1992; Tannen, 1990).  Certainly there are numerous behaviors common to both sexes, and a degree of "overlap" in the display of other actions traditionally associated with a certain gender.  Personal variations on the common gender themes occur because all of us are individuals affected by many forces.

 Whether gender variances are primarily biologically or environmentally determined is not the focus of this paper.  Instead, by presenting empirical and observational reports, this piece will forward the possibility that "traditional" male behavioral patterns, whatever their etiology, are often viewed by female teachers as being "inappropriate", placing boys at risk for misidentification as being emotionally and/or behaviorally disordered (EBD).  At present, the research base is limited in this area, but gender issues do appear to be deeply imbedded in perceptions of whether certain behaviors are appropriate.

School Expectations and Gender Differences
 If schools are to achieve their stated mission of imparting knowledge and information, social order must be maintained therein.  Enforcement of regulations regarding social deportment is intended to allow teachers to do their job and guarantee that the rights of all students are respected, and permit all pupils to learn.  Below are some common ritualistic rule categories, viewed by most educators as being necessary to the schooling process.  However, these regulations are often too rigorously enforced in an effort to allow anachronist teaching practices (e.g., full-period lecturing) to continue, working against, rather than with, behavioral patterns brought to school by boys.

 Comply and Cooperate
 Those who are more experienced in life or possess specialized knowledge commonly feel the need to direct their learners to engage in actions that are believed to enhance the ability to learn.  However, many teachers who possess valuable knowledge bases are unskilled in motivating youngsters to attend and creating an emotional bond with them.  Inflexible instructors are likely to meet resistance, especially from boys, in their efforts to enlighten.

 Boys possess a greater propensity for rebelling against, and engaging in conflict with authority than girls who are more likely to comply with a hierarchical structure (Boggiano & Barrett, 1992; Brislin, 1993; Caseau, Luckasson & Kroth, 1994; Grossman & Grossman, 1994; Kehrberg, 1994; Maccoby, 1990; Tannen, 1990; Time, 1990).  The oppositional style of boys is seen as early as kindergarten and stands in contrast to young females' tendency to avoid conflict and preserve harmony (Grossman & Grossman, 1994; Tannen, 1990).  For many boys, rejection of female authority in particular might be due to a developmental need to separate from the mother (or other women in authority) in order to fully form their male identity (Chodorow 1989; Cosse, 1992).

 Whatever the reason for male oppositional behavior, for them, life is viewed as a contest to find competence and master an environment in which they feel constantly tested, while for females, life is a struggle to find a voice for oneself while guarding against the danger of fracturing relationships with others and being cut off from them (Cosse, 1992; Time, 1990).  The female pattern of seeking "common ground" to promote friendship and bonding is in opposition to the stereotypical male behavioral constellation involving competitiveness to achieve status, and exerting dominance over others (Campbell, 1990; Grossman & Grossman, 1994; PBS, 1991; Tannen, 1990).  Females tend to avoid this competitive and hierarchical manner of relating to others, displaying a greater desire to be liked, and wanting to relate to and cooperate with others (Brislin, 1993; Cosse, 1992; Grossman & Grossman, 1994; Maccoby, 1990; Time, 1990).

 Competitive and oppositional behavior may be brought to the surface and exacerbated in our schools which invariably require "feminine" behavior (Hanna, 1988; McIntyre, 1994; Tannen, 1990), especially when considering that boys who display traditionally feminine traits are commonly ostracized and victimized by other boys (Baruth & Manning, 1992; Gollnick & Chinn, 1990; McIntyre, 1992b).  One gender appears to be more likely to comply with strictly enforced rules and regulations than the other.

 Be Polite and Use Your Manners
 Most individuals concur that showing respect for others is a vital observance in social interaction, but again there are wide variations in which behaviors are displayed when one demonstates respect to, and attempts to gain it from, individuals at the different levels of friendship and authority.

 While females typically view a good person as being modest and self-effacing, males commonly view modesty as being foolishly self- denigrating, and evidence of emotional insecurity (Time, 1990).  In communication, while girls tend to sacrifice honesty for harmony, boys more commonly opt for frank and direct communication of their views (Tannen, 1990).  Whereas females agree, support, and empathize when conversing, males tend to question, cajole, and challenge (Campbell, 1990; Tannen, 1990).  They are more typically aggressive, caustic, and forceful in their language (Grossman & Grossman, 1994), giving orders, criticizing others' ideas, and jostling for authority (Tannen, 1990).  In general, while girls' speech is affiliative, boys' talk is adversarial (Sheldon, 1992).  The male style of communication may place it's users at risk for being perceived by females as "disrespectful" and "inappropriate".

 Get Along With Others
 Aggression, verbal or physical, is officially verboten in schools.  However, at what point does dynamic competition between parties become unacceptable?  Those not used to displaying certain types of competition might mistake friendly or ritualized aggression as representing something more serious than it is in actuality.

 When planning activities, girls characteristically promote cooperative interaction by using such words as "we" and "us" (Tannen, 1990).  For males, "we" and "us" serve a comparative and contrasting function, not a communal one.  Boys are more likely than girls to express and create affiliation through opposition and competition with each other (Ong, 1981; Tannen, 1990).  In fact, minor conflict is commonly a friendly foray that assists in the development of male friendship bonds, and even pugilistic opponents often become best of friends after an evenly matched fight (Tannen, 1990; Thomas, 1967).  The most widely accepted conclusions regarding gender are that, in general, males are more aggressive, and females are more nurturing in all cultures for which documentation exists (Brislin, 1993).

Are the rules unfair?
 The interactions between teachers and students are "suffused with gender" according to Clarricoates (1983, p. 46; cited by Swann, 1993).  Consider that the majority of our teachers, especially in elementary schools, are female.  They have likely been socialized differently than the boys they teach, and their resultant lower tolerance level for male behavior may preclude productive student-teacher relationships, contributing to referrals for special education (Gollnick & Chinn, 1990).  Despite claims that rules are geared toward males (Caseau, Luckasson & Kroth, 1994), our schools, to a large extent, promote the behavioral code of European American middle class women (e.g., sit quietly, speak softly, be non-confrontational, etc.) (Hanna, 1988; McIntyre, 1996a; 1996b), and require behavior that is more "natural" for girls than boys (Gurian, 1996; Tannen, 1990).

 According to Sexton (1969), schools attempt to feminize boys and make them dependent, essentially working against the development of positive manhood.  Hanna (1988, p. 59) agrees writing "Boys generally exhibit traits of aggressiveness and independence that the school does not reward, although society does.  The behavior demanded by schools is more `feminine' than `masculine'.  Consequently, groups that place a high value on masculinity have little enthusiasm for schooling and its associations."  Given the prominence of "the curriculum of control" (Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch, 1990) in our schools, boys, with their competitive and oppositional style, are more likely to rebel against school authority as presently practiced in most schools.

Gender Representation in Programs for EBD Youngsters
 As alluded to above, gender-based differences may be especially pertinent to programming for youngsters with EBD.  Boys are identified as being EBD at a rate of three (Campbell & Werry, 1986) or three and a half (Office of Civil Rights, 1988; Gollnick & Chinn, 1990) to seven and a half (United States Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, 1993) or eight (Coleman, 1986; Lauritzen, 1990) times that for girls.  Of all the categories of disability, "serious emotional disturbance" has the highest percentage of boys.  Additionally, boys are more likely than girls to receive mental health services (Green, Clopton, & Pope, 1996).

 Certainly, many boys are correctly identified as being EBD, but are all boys labeled as such truly deserving of this designation?  Consider that the gender mismatch between students and teachers, so evident in general education classrooms, is even more highly pronounced in classrooms for youngsters with EBD.  While about 75 to 80% of EBD students are males, and minorities, especially boys (Kehrberg, 1994), are overrepresented in classrooms for these youth (Anderson, 1992; Ford, 1992; Chinn & Hughes, 1987; McIntyre, 1993; Kehrberg, 1994; Viadero, 1992), somewhere between 80-85% of teachers of EBD pupils are White females (Lauritzen, 1990).  This percentage will probably increase as fewer males (Long, 1996; Nicholas, 1990) and minorities (Ford, 1992; Gay, 1989) enter the teaching profession.

Why Are Males Overrepresented in the EBD Category?
 The overrepresentation of boys and accompanying underrepresentation of girls has been attributed to a number of possible causes.  For one, girls might be underidentified due to their tendency to keep their problems private (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; McLaughlin, Leone, Warren, & Schofield, 1994) which in turn are likely to be overlooked by teachers (Offord, Boyle, & Racine, 1989).  Meanwhile, boys might be overrepresented because their externalizing behavior is more disturbing and difficult to manage (Bushweller, 1994; Green, Clopton, & Pope, 1996; McIntyre, 1988), especially in typical classrooms wherein lengthy periods of seatwork and attention to cognitive tasks are required by teachers.  The fact that 12% of boys take daily doses of ritalin ("20/20", 3/22/96) (often as a result of parental referrals to physicians after concerns were expressed by school personnel) should at least raise suspicions regarding how boy-like behaviors are perceived by the predominately female teaching force.

 In line with school expectations, female students commonly hold in their emotions or display them subtly.  In contrast, boys display them strongly (Grossman & Grossman, 1994).  While girls are more likely to experience themselves as being sad or depressed, boys express more acting out manifestations of their emotions (Achenbach, Howell, Quay, & Connors, 1991; Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; Grossman & Grossman, 1994).

 Even when acting out, boys and girls tend to do so in different ways.  Many girls with emotional difficulties act out with promiscuity (Kauffman, 1993; Toth, 1990), a behavioral pattern that might not bring about special services.  In general, typical responses of girls to emotional distress fail to be viewed by school personnel as being in need of special services (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; Grossman & Grossman, 1994).

 Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth (1994) offer a number of other possibilities for the overrepresentation phenomenon, among them; female teachers valuing boys moreso than students of their own gender (which motivates them to provide the limited special services to boys), schools' fear of cries of discrimination if they were to overidentify females, parents' resistance to placement of their female children in EBD classes they view as being filled with acting out boys, construction of service delivery systems designed primarily to corral those who pose the greatest threat to school order, and the abundance of female teachers in general education who lack tolerance for boyish behavior.
 Regarding the last point, male educators do seem to hold greater tolerance for rule violations (Bushweller, 1994), with male regular education teachers referring students with high levels of disruptive, acting-out behavior less often than their female colleagues (McIntyre, 1988).  In support of those findings, Ritter (1989) also found female teachers to be more sensitive to externalizing behaviors in the general education classroom.  Even when the behaviors of boys are identical to those of girls, teachers respond more readily when boys misbehave (Jones, 1989; Lindley & Keithley, 1991).

 Boys from lower socio-economic classes are at especially  high risk for a diagnosis of serious emotional disturbance (Clark 1985; Foster, 1986; 1995; Kauffman, 1981; Wagner, 1991), perhaps because they typically display the most extreme levels of "male behavior" (McIntyre, 1994; 1996c), and more often engage in confrontational behavior to gain acceptance into groups, develop friendships, and establish their place in the friendship dominance hierarchy (Hanna, 1988; Thomas, 1967).  Chinn and Harris (1990) postulated that White middle class females, who comprise most of the teaching force, may have value-reflecting behaviors that conflict strongly with those of lower socioeconomic male and minority students.  These different values (and resultant behavior) may cause many teachers to misinterpret behaviors that are tolerable in the youngsters' homes or neighborhoods as being "aggressive", "inappropriate", or otherise intolerable in the academic setting.  This conflict of value orientations may make general educators prone to referring these students for special education services (Kehrberg, 1994).

 Exit criteria are also of concern.  Many writers in the field of EBD bemoan the permanency of placements for our youngsters.  In addition to the possibility that this phenomenon indicates we have correctly identified youngsters with persistent emotional and behavioral disorders (McIntyre, 1996a), perhaps the "stickiness" of our programs is due in some part to female teachers in both EBD programs and regular classroom settings viewing inflexible, action- oriented male-typical behavioral patterns as an indication that these boys are "not yet cured".

Who Gets Shortchanged?
 Although the extent of the claims of educational gender bias against girls by the American Association of University Women (1992) were unfounded by their own statistics ("20/20", 3/22/96), and were described by former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch (quoted in Bushweller, 1994) as "a feeding frenzy of victimization" based on "a lot of hype", gender does indeed affect the quality of education one receives.  For example, girls receive less contact time, assistance on tasks, and commentary regarding those tasks (AAUW, 1992; Chapman, 1988).  However, while teachers do give more attention to boys (Swann, 1993), this reaction is probably an unknowing behavior management technique implemented in an attempt to keep them calm and focused on task ("20/20", 3/22/96).  Girls are less likely to be called upon during lessons (AAUW, 1992).  However, part of this phenomenon is probably due to boys' more impulsive and domineering manner of contribution (Oxford, 1995), and/or their active manner of gaining the teacher's attention (e.g., waving or extending hands and arms while vocalizing their desire to be recognized) ("20/20", 3/22/96).

 At present, research on gender equity appears focused moreso on girls than boys (Bushweller, 1994), pointing out unfairness affecting young females, but failing to acknowledge that young male students also face problems.  Organizations and writers claiming bias against girls (practiced, ironically, by a predominantly female teaching force) fail to note that, in general, boys: have more trouble learning to read and write (Gurian, 1996); tend to receive lower report card grades, repeat more grades, and are disciplined more frequently and severely than girls (Sadker, Sadker & Klein, 1986); receive more suspensions and expulsions (Bushweller, 1994); are responsible for 90% of antisocial and aggressive behavior in the schools (Walker & Sylwester, 1991); experience greater dropout rates; and are placed in special education (especially classes for EBD) more often (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; Gollnick & Chinn, 1990).  Outside of the school building, boys: are twice as likely to be abused and die of their injuries (Gurian, 1996); commit 75% of serious youth crime (Walker & Sylwester, 1991); have a greater chance of being adjudicated and incarcerated, and are more likely to be emergency room admittees for drug overdoses, car accidents, or violent crime (National Center for Health Statistics, 1993); are the gender most likely to die at the hands of another teen (usually another boy), and are also four times more likely to die of AIDS (National Center for Health Statistics, 1993).

 While Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth (1994) report that girls exhibit more depression and thoughts of suicide, middle school boys have a much lower image of themselves as students than do girls (Harper & Purkey, 1993), and (depending on their age) commit suicide at two to six times the rate of girls (National Center for Health Statistics, 1993).  Other claims of generally lower self- esteem among female students compared to male pupils also appear to be unfounded (U.S. Department of Education study cited in Gurian, 1996).

 One has to wonder why such high levels of self-destructive behavior garner so little public and professional concern.  Perhaps it is because society does not see young males as a segment of the population that could experience discrimination (Osowski, 1994).

  In general, it appears as if male students may be more prone to the types of behavior that schools view as being behavioral disabilities (Bushweller, 1994).  Boys who conform to the traditional male pattern of active, independent, extroverted, and assertive/aggressive behavior, pay a penalty in classrooms (Fling & Manosevitz, 1972; Kehrberg, 1994).  We, as concerned educators, must ask ourselves why we punish the assertive, competitive, risk- taking behaviors that will later be useful in career advancement.  It is normal for boys to challenge authority. Teachers who understand this phenomenon, and make programmatic accommodations for it, help boys learn and develop academically and personally.  Professionals who display flexible and caring authority remove much of the risk for engaging in on-going conflict and non-productive battles over what behaviors are "appropriate".

 While codes of conduct promoting safety and learning are necessary, school regulations, as presently structured, typically constrict and oppose non-threatening male behavior (e.g., active movement, ritual play fighting, good-natured fun made of others).  Gender-based behavioral patterns might place boys at increased risk for EBD identification.  This happens because most female teachers, not used to displaying these behaviors themselves, commonly view boy's actions as being more threatening or inappropriate than they are in actuality (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994).

 Over and over, special educators demand "Individualize!"  We promote instructional, procedural, and behavior management modifications that allow for age, disability, and cultural differences.  Yet when it comes to making allowances for gender, the cry is muffled.  While we hear frequent claims of bias against girls (AAUW, 1992; Sadler & Sadler, 1994), rarely do we hear the other side of the story.  We need to remember that boys face educational challenges too.

 There exists the strong possibility that the phenomenon of "gendercentricity" applies here.  Because of the feminine orientation of school rules, and the differences between the genders' behavioral and communication patterns, female teachers are likely to view displays of traditional male behavior as being "inappropriate".  Indeed, the overrepresentation of boys in classrooms for youngsters with emotional and/or behavioral disorders may be, to some extent, the result of the "feminization" of our schools (McIntyre, 1996a).

 A number of approaches can be implemented to make school environments more palatable and productive for boys.  For example, local, state, and federal efforts are necessary to make teaching EBD youngsters more attractive to men (Long, 1996).  In fact, there is a need to draw men to the teaching profession in general.  However, the system will not automatically correct itself with the recruitment of more male teachers.  It is not just female educators who must critique their present views and practices.  Nearly all male educators have been successful in female-oriented school settings as youngsters, have been taught the time-honored teaching and disciplinary methods during preservice training, and are likely to continue the practices they've experienced and believe to be "correct" (McIntyre, 1996a).

 By extension, professors of education must engage in the personal study of gender differences in order to avoid passing on practices to teacher trainees that benefit one gender at the expense of the other.  Because this enlightened training is not occurring near the end of the millennium, there is an evident need for inservice training regarding gender based differences in communication and behavior (and their cultural/socio-economic variations) in order to make educators more effective (Kehrberg, 1994), and assist them in becoming positive change agents.  In addition to receiving "sensitivity training", teachers must also be provided with guidance regarding how to modify instructional and behavior management procedures to more productively address male styles of learning, behaving, and communicating.

 Much further down the road, there may be a call for changes to the federal definition for serious emotional disturbance that consider gender issues in the identification of disordered behavior (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; McIntyre, 1996a).  These definitional amendments would probably address commonly found differences between the sexes in cognition, communication, and interaction and behavioral styles.  First, however, gender differences need to be investigated more fully, and discussed to a greater extent at professional meetings and in the literature.

 Also needed are better assessment measures and procedures that reflect gender based needs and considerations (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994).  At the moment, only one assessment tool (McIntyre, 1995a) considers both gender and cultural influences on behavior in a manner that avoids the culturally insensitive practice of using comparison norm groups (McIntyre, 1995c).

 While some writers (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994) suggest that efforts be made to equalize the number of male and female students in programs for EBD students, that recommendation appears to be flawed.  Girls do experience more depression and suicidal ideation, but without auxiliary and collaborative services that address their mental health concerns, placing them into environments where their needs are secondary to emphases on academics and behavioral change is contraindicated.

 Certainly, non-discrimination guarantees must be developed and enforced, but re-engineering the classroom to create a "gender- free" environment is a "politically correct" response that is educationally unsound.  Gender based differences must be recognized, respected, and addressed.  While boys and girls are similar, they are not identical.  Therefore, treating boys and girls equally does not mean treating them the same. Viva la difference!


 20/20, (3/22/96). "Are girls getting less?" ABC News.

Achenbach, T.M., Howell, C.T., Quay, H.C., & Connors, C.K.  (1991). National survey of problems and competencies among   four- to sixteen-year olds: Parents' reports for normative and clinical samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56 (3), 7-11.

 American Association of University Women (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation and National Education Association.

 Anderson, M.G. (1992). The use of selected theatre rehearsal technique activities with African-American adolescents labeled "behavior disordered". Exceptional Children, 59(2), 132-140.

 Bank Street College. (1995). Colloquium on gender issues in education (brochure) for a panel presentation for the Assembly on Issues in Early Adolescence. New York: Bank Street College.

 Baruth, L.G., & Manning, M.L. (1992). Multicultural education of children and adolescents. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 Block, J. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54, 1335-1354.

 Boggiano, A.K., & Barrett, M. (1992). Gender differences in depression in children as a function of motivational orientation. Sex Roles, 26, 11-17.

 Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
 Bushweller, K. (1994). Turning our backs on boys, The American School Board Journal, 181(5), 20-25.

 Campbell, S. 9/24/90. Battle of sexes all in how you say it. Sacramento Bee Final Edition, p. B7.

 Campbell, S.B., & Werry, J.S. (1986). Attention deficit disorder (hyperactivity). In H.C. Quay & J.S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed.) (pp 96-105). New York: Wiley.

 Caseau, D.L., Luckasson,R., & Kroth, R.L. (1994). Special education services for girls with serious emotional disturbance: A case of gender bias? Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), 51-60.

 Chapman, A. (1988). The difference it makes: A resource book on gender for educators. Boston: National Association of Independent Schools.

 Chinn, P.C., & Harris, K.C. (1990). Variables affecting the disproportionate placement of ethnic minority children in special education programs. Multicultural Leader, 3(1), 1-3.

 Chinn, P., & Hughes, S. (1987). Representation of minority students in special education classes. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 41-46.

 Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 Coleman, M.C. (1986). Behavior disorders: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Cosse, W.J. (1992). Who's who and what's what? The effects of gender on development in adolescence. In B.R. Wainrib (Ed.) Gender issues across the life cycle (pp. 13-21). New York: Springer Publishing.

 Fling, S., & Mansevitz, M. (1972). Sex typing in nursery school children's play interests. Developmental Psychology, 7, 146- 152.

 Ford, B.A. (1992). Multicultural education training for special educators working with African-American youth. Exceptional Children, 59(2), 107-114.

 Foster, H.L. (1986). Ribbin', jivin', and playin' the dozens (2nd ed.). Williamsville, NY: Foster and Associates.

 Gay, G. (1989). Ethnic minorities and educational equality. In J.A. Banks and C.A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 167-188). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P.C. (1990). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (3rd. ed.). New York: Merrill.

 Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars: Women are from Venus. New York: Harper Row.

 Green, M.T., Clopton, J.R., & Pope, A.W. (1996). Understanding gender differences in referral of children to mental health services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(3), 182- 190.

 Grossman, H., & Grossman, S.H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 Gurian, M. (1996). The wonder of boys. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

 Hanna, J.L. (1988). Disruptive school behavior: Class, race and culture. New York: Holmes & Meier.

 Harper, K.L., & Purkey, W.W. (1993). Self-concept-as-learner of middle level students. Research in Middle Level Education, 17(1), 79-89.

 Jones, M.G. (1989). Gender bias in classroom interactions. Contemporary Education, 60, 218-221.

 Kauffman, J.M. (1981). Characteristics of children's behavior disorders (2nd ed.) Columbus, OH: Merrill.

 Kauffman, J.M. (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (5th ed.) Columbus, OH: Merrill.

 Kehrberg, R.S. (1994). Behavioral disorders and gender/sexual issues. In R.L. Peterson & S. Ishii-Jordan (Eds.), Multicultural issues in the education of students with behavioral disorders. Boston: Brookline Press.

 Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

 Lauritzen, P. (1990). Comprehensive assessment of service needs for special education in Wisconsin, 1990. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

 Lindley, J.A., & Keithley, M.E. (1991). Gender expectations and student achievement. Roeper Review, 13, 213-215.

 Long, N.J. (1996). To those who will continue the struggle. In B.L. Brooks & D.A. Sabatino (Eds.), Personal perspectives on emotional disturbance/behavioral disorders (pp.98-110). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

  Maccoby, E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.

 McIntyre, L. (1988). Teacher gender: A predictor of special education referral? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 382-384.

 McIntyre, T. (1991). Understanding and defusing the streetcorner behavior of urban black socially maladjusted youth. Severe Behavior Disorders of Children and Youth, 14, 85-97.

 McIntyre, T. (1992a). The culturally sensitive disciplinarian. Severe Behavior Disorders of Children and Youth, 15, 107-115.

 McIntyre, T. (1992b). The "invisible culture" in our schools: Gay and lesbian youth. Beyond Behavior, 3(3), 6-12.

 McIntyre, T. (1993). Reflections on the impact of the proposed definition for emotional and behavioral disorders: Who will still fall through the cracks and why. Behavioral Disorders, 18(2), 148- 160.

 McIntyre, T. (1994). Teaching urban youth with behavioral disorders. In R. Peterson & S. Ishi-Jordan (Eds.), Multicultural issues in the education of students with behavioral disorders (pp.216-232). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

 McIntyre, T. (1995a). The McIntyre Assessment of Culture. Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services.

 McIntyre, T. (1995b). Culturally sensitive and appropriate assessment for students with E/BD. CCBD Newsletter, 9(3), 7.

 McIntyre, T. (1996a). Entering uncharted waters with tattered sails and a broken compass. In B.L. Brooks & D.A. Sabatino, Personal perspectives on emotional disturbance/behavioral disorders (pp. 232-249). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

 McIntyre, T. (1996b). Guidelines for providing appropriate services to culturally diverse students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 137-144.

 McIntyre, T. (1996c). Earning the respect of streetwise youngsters. Reclaiming At-Risk Youth, 4(4), 38-41.

 McIntyre, T. (1996d). Does the way we teach create behavior disorders in culturally different students? Education and Treatment of Children, 19(3), 354-370.

 McLaughlin, M.J., Leone, P.E., Warren, S.H., & Schofield, P.F. (1994). Doing things differently: Issues & options for creating comprehensive school linked services for children and youth with emotional or behavioral disorders. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

 National Center for Health Statistics (1993). Cited in K. Bushweller (1994), Turning our backs on boys, The American School Board Journal, May, 20-24.

 Nicholas, G. (1990). ASCUS research report: Teacher supply and demand in the United States, 1990. Evanston, IL: Association for School, College, and University Staffing.

 Office of Civil Rights (1988). 1986 elementary and secondary schools civil rights survey. (U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

 Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., & Racine, Y. (1989). Ontario child health study: Correlates of disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 856-860.
 Ong, W.J. (1989). Fighting for life: Contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
 Osowki, J. quoted in K. Bushweller (1994), Turning our backs on boys, The American School Board Journal, May, 20-24.

 Oxford, R.L. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In J.M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 34-46). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
 PBS Television (1991). "Equal start" (part 1) of Childhood. Antelope Films.

 Ritter, D.R. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of problem behavior in general and special education.  Exceptional Children, 55(6), 559-564.

 Sadler, M.P., & Sadler, D.M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Scribner's.

 Sadler, M.P., Sadler, D.M., & Klein, S. (1986). Abolishing misperceptions about sex equity in education. Theory into Practice, 25(4), 219-226.

 Sexton, P.C. (1969). The feminized male: Classrooms, white collars & the decline of manliness. New York: Random House.

 Sheldon, A. (1992). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(1), 95-117.

 Swann, J. (1993). Girls, boys and language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

 Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Ballantine.

 Thomas, P. (1967). Down these mean streets. New York: Vintage.

 Time 4/30/90, Return to the blackboard jungle. 106.

 Toth, M.K. (1990). Understanding and treating conduct disorders. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

 United States Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (1993). Cited in K. Bushweller (1994), Turning our backs on boys, The American School Board Journal, May, 20-24.

 Viadero, D. (1992). New definition of `emotionally disturbed' sought. Education Week, 4/29/92, p. 24.

 Wagner, M. (1991). Secondary school programs. In M. Wagner, L. Newman, R. D'Amico, E.D. Jay, P. Butler-Nalin, C. Marder, & R. Cox (Eds.), Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of special education students (pp. 31-54). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

 Walker, H., & Sylwester, R. (1991). Where is school along the path to prison? Educational Leadership, 49(1), 14-16.

Author Biographies:
Tom McIntyre, professor of special education, and Virginia Tong, assistant professor of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) are faculty members in the graduate school of education at Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Return to the Table of Contents for Culture, Gender, and Orientation Issues